4

You Simply Can't Ignore These Stocks

Traditional investing logic tells us that, when the economy turns sour like it has, we ought to flock to undervalued large-cap stocks. Not only do they have better access to capital than smaller companies do, but they also attract the smartest and brightest business minds.

If the recent market implosion has taught us anything, though, it's that a poorly run large company can fall harder than a poorly run small company in an unforgiving market. In fact, some small companies have adjusted much better than their larger counterparts have.

Castles made of sandCertainly there's still some merit in the conventional approach -- one could do far worse than buy quality names such as Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX) at current prices, as both of these blue chips have solid balance sheets and continue to attract top talent.

Yet there was no shortage of talent wanting to get in the doors of Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, and Bear Stearns. In fact, all three were among the 100 "most desirable" MBA employers in 2008, according to a Fortune survey. If traditional logic held true, this high-caliber talent should have been able to recognize the companies' problems and correct them more quickly than a smaller company could. As we all know, that reasoning failed many investors.

In fact, it's been a number of smaller financial firms -- like Great Southern Bancorp, a Midwestern bank with $3.7 billion in assets -- that have proven to be nimbler than Goliath-sized competitors like Bank of America and Citigroup. Well-positioned financial firms like Great Southern can capitalize on adverse market conditions by sweeping up troubled companies' assets, as Great Southern did with Kansas-based TeamBank on March 20, 2009. Shares of Great Southern have more than doubled over the past year.

Titanic flopsBut it's not just the financials. Consistently poor execution at iconic American businesses like Ford (NYSE: F) and Gannett (NYSE: GCI) came home to roost during this recession even though both companies employed tens of thousands and had plenty of access to capital.

Now compare those giant tales of woe to the success of PetMed Express, a $400 million pet-drug prescription company that employs about 250 people. In October, the company reported earnings growth of 12% year over year, remained free-cash-flow positive, and kept long-term debt off its balance sheet. And in August, PetMed Express announced its first-ever dividend payment -- a sign that management and the board of directors is confident in the business's ability to continue to generate cash.

Bucking the dividend trendAnother reason investors traditionally turned to large caps in this type of environment was for their consistent and reliable dividends, but after 62 S&P 500 companies cut their payouts in 2008 -- followed by another 78 cuts or suspensions so far in 2009, according to S&P data, from companies including Macy's, SunTrust (NYSE: STI) , and BB&T (NYSE: BBT) , it's clear (or clearer than usual) that no dividend is guaranteed.

Indeed, in a conference call after the dividend cut, Macy's Chief Executive Terry J. Lundgren said, "We just believe that this is a time when nothing should be considered a sacred cow."

It's discouraging to see so many blue-chip companies that have paid or raised dividends for decades suddenly change course and blame their mistakes on the macroeconomic picture, but there are still companies out there, large and small, staying true to shareholders with dividend increases in this market.

One of those companies is $4 billion clothing retailer Guess?, which, in August -- despite operating in the same consumer spending environment as Macy's -- increased its quarterly dividend by 25% on the heels of an increase in sales and profits for the quarter.

Guess? is able to do this because it isn't burdened by debt (it has almost no long-term debt), and it generates plenty of free cash flow. So it has plenty of room to raise dividends or reinvest in the business for the benefit of its shareholders.

Choose your weapons wiselyIn a market where economic agility and strong management matter more than ever, make sure you're studying well-run small companies alongside larger companies. For my money, I want to own companies, regardless of size, that have a strong management team, have a rock-solid balance sheet, and dominate their market niche.

One of the companies I've been researching recently is Darling International, a $600 million company that fills a niche not many others want to fill: collecting food-service waste (grease and discarded meat) and rendering or recycling the waste into usable by-products such as animal feed, industrial oils, and even biofuel.

It's not only the largest company in this field (and the only one that's publicly traded), but it also has contractual relationships with big names such as McDonald's and Costco Wholesale (Nasdaq: COST) . It's a cyclical business, to be sure, but Darling has positive free cash flow, more cash than long-term debt, and tenured management -- so it's worth your time to research.

If you're looking for more small-cap ideas for this market, our Motley Fool Hidden Gems team can help. Among other things, they look for stocks that are:

Underfollowed on Wall Street.

Led by dedicated founders.

Financially strong.

Well-managed.

Dominant in their market niche.

A free 30-day trial of the Hidden Gems service is yours; click here to get started. There's no obligation to subscribe.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

But it's not just the financials. Consistently poor execution at iconic American businesses like Ford (NYSE: F) and Gannett (NYSE: GCI) came home to roost during this recession even though both companies employed tens of thousands and had plenty of access to capital."

Why would you use Ford in this example, and not GM? It seems Ford has executed pretty damn well through this recession and is primed for excellence once the economy improves (positive operating cash flow in Q309 and significant market share increase).